"...most critically in the latter's ability to create children almost casually."

Yes, like those shame "marriages" entered into by the elderly and infertile.

It's all quite clear to me now. My marriage is not so much a partnership between loving adults as it is about what goes on between the sheets!

er, "sham" marriages (too used to typing "shame on you" in these threads, I guess)

What Petrarca's proposing is even weaker than civil unions. He's not fooling anybody.

"And it's about eliminating the right of Americans to recognize that distinction."

Sounds about right. All Americans are created equal after all.

"The relationship formed in homosexual couples is different in substantive ways from the relationship formed between heterosexual couples..."

Justin, just because your homosexual relationships are different, doesn't mean everyone's are different!

Justin, why wasn't the civil rights debate simply about the rights of individual citizens to recognize their own belief in their superiority over other races?

Because when a minority is denied the exact same civil rights the majority has, it's STILL discrimination.

You wrote: "The relationship formed in homosexual couples is different in substantive ways from the relationship formed between heterosexual couples, most critically in the latter's ability to create children almost casually."

So you're saying that because heterosexual couples can have kids (rather than oh, I don't know, adopt one of the thousands of homeless children in this country), that's why they should be recognized as having different rights than homosexual couples?

You can try and frame this argument any way you want, but Rep. Petrarca's bill and those who support it will do *anything* they can to prevent non-heterosexual couples from marrying on completely ideological grounds.

Remind me the reason gay people shouldn't marry? The bible says so? Or is it that it will destroy the American family unit?

I forget, the answer to that question has changed from the right-side of this debate more times than I can count. I want to know why the word "marriage" and what other people do with it offends you so much. What does it do to you, other than contribute positively to your economy?

Justin, I am just curious, do you have any gay friends ?

Even Sarah Palin claimed to have many gay friends (thou when pressed she could not name any..or newspapers for that mater"

Maybe I should ask, Justin do you have any friends, gay or straight ?

Russ,

Yes, the infertile and elderly are a case where men and women might not be able to do what naturally they could do.

Do you think keeping people from going to the Opera because they are deaf is a good idea? How about people working as editors if they are blind?

There is something about impairment that, if you ask me, allows for exception without invalidating the purpose behind what they are doing.

Do you think homosexuality is just such an impairment? Legitimate question...

Bella,

Howso? As Justin notes they are even stronger. Here's how I see this idea as stronger than Civil Unions...

1) They are more inclusive -- they are not exclusive to homosexual relationships.
2) They do not create different classes of behaviors, they recognize each relationship for what they are, and survive on the merits of their own relationships.

Swazool,

Justin answered this already in noting the true antecedent of "that" in his quote...

"Perhaps on an emotional level it's true, but intellectually, the same-sex marriage cause is not about equal rights; it's about erasing a real distinction between two different human relationships."

Individuals are all equal. Relationships may be equal, but certainly can have unique needs, such as the one Marriage addresses in promoting responsible procreation (meaning between a man and a woman).

jparis,

Interesting. Because there is a group in this debate which seems to hold echoes from the identity politics of the past. A group which like the segregationists of the past argue that their identity requires them to exclude some group of other people from their institution.

But that isn't marriage, because gays can get married if they get married to someone of the other gender.

Oh, they can't you say? They can't marry someone of the *other* gender because of their *identity* of being homosexual? Well I think we've found the echoes of the segregationists then.

And unless you are willing to argue that gays cannot love, honor, and cherish someone of the other gender in any meaningful marital way (perhaps that is the impairment that Russ alluded to when bringing up the infertile and elderly?) then you cannot argue that gays are anything but excluding themselves from marriage.

No problem with that, they should just be honest and not point the blame at the law, which really doesn't care of a man or woman are gay getting married together.

And honestly, neither do many gays really let that stop them from marrying someone of the other gender, either.

On lawn,
For arguements sake, Let's consider homosexuality an impairment, like infertility, then they should be considered able to get married. If anything, it is not a real impairment but a variation in the sexual continuum.

You want to deny the "emotional" level of the civil rights, and promote the intellectual level? I find that funny, just for the fact that most people against marriage equality are bible thumpers, not too much intelect in that. When you actually believe a Jonah the whale story as fact, i guess you can believe anything.
But intellectually, gay couples are regular tax paying productive citizens, some even have children! They just want the same things every other RI family is entitled too. To ask them to live a lie and marry someone of a different gender to get it is moronic.

Swazool,

Could you explain better what you are getting at?

First, are you really saying homosexuality is an impairment? If so, how? And if you feel it is, then you should let people know that is the basis of why you expect homosexuality should be treated like an impairment like infertility is in marriage policy.

Lets take this one at a time, after we discuss homosexuality as a handicap (your belief?, not mine) we can move on.

Not an impairment, but a variation.

Okay, more specifically...

Do you believe that being a homosexual means you cannot love, honor and cherish someone of the other gender in any meaningful marital way?

Because that is an impairment, not a "variation".

In a "marital" way? That would include sexual relations, as sex is an important part of a relationship and marriage. In that way, I do not believe a homosexual can marry a person of the opposite gender and fulfill the requirements you ask.

So in your sense it would be an impairment in that "martial way" because of the variation. bringing us back to the first point, you should not exclude people from the activity if they are impaired from doing it.

Let's go back to infertility. A woman who is born with no ovaries is born with a genetic variation. That variation makes her impaired, and not able to produce eggs to have babies. It follows the same logic.

Fine, Swazool, you can argue that homosexuals are impaired, but I don't believe it. I know many homosexuals who would go so far as to call you homophobic for claiming such.

Thanks for clarifying that. Its your belief so I'll move on.

(On the "genetic variation" note, being born without ovaries is not a genetic condition, I'll skip that as your attempt at arm-chair science).

Lets move on to point number two,

I pay taxes, and taxes go to buying ambulances and police cars. Does that mean I can commandeer either one for my own purposes?

So you are saying sex is not an important part of a marital relationship? Wow.

Point 2, no, just because you pay taxes you can not commandeer a police car for your own purpose.....I know where this is going but please lead me there.

Swazool,

Your "so you are saying" is rather comical. Perhaps you should stick to clarifying your own views, rather than misinterpreting others.

Anyway, you are right, just because you pay taxes doesn't mean you get the right to commandeer ambulances.

Sounds like you've invalidated the only points you presented for neutering marriage.

My work here is done.

You are trying to say that I said that homosexuals are impaired, when I clearly said a few times they are a variant.

Sounds like you manipulate more than misinterpret words.

I had fun debating with you, come back when you are able to make some valid points and try to keep up.

Now, while you claim I've not made any valid points, you've clearly shown you not only agree with the points but will run full steam with them (e.g. "For arguements sake, Let's consider homosexuality an impairment, like infertility").

That you are back-peddling after such an effort shows your own ineptness, not mine.

Swazool, you said specifically about the inability to love, honor and cherish someone of the other gender in any meaningful marital way that "it would be an impairment" for homosexuals.

You've not said anything which suggests you disagree with that. In fact you've done quite the opposite, you illustrated your point with an example of how variants can cause impairment. Specifically you noted how genetic variations could cause a woman to be born without ovaries.

You can't have it both ways. That you are trying to shows you haven't really thought this through very well.

Your back? Great.
I do enjoy how you cut my sentences off, selective quotes are great!

Ok lets go through this again. You say a deaf person should be able to go to an opera? Then a gay person should be able to marry the person they choose, since they are not able to engage in marital love (that being sex) with the opposite gender because they are a variant in the sexual continuum that makes an impairment.
You do have half way valid points, I am just trying to get you all the way there, to a completely valid point. Try to work through it. I am sure you will get there with some time.

I never said I left. I only said I was done, and considering your stagnation in the debate, I believe that was prescient.

Feel free to show where my "selective quotes" don't represent your position.

From where I see it, you claim there is an impairment dissociated with homosexuality, caused by some variation in something you've not quite been able to explain.

Your quotes bear that out, so does your recent comment, "they [homosexuals] are not able to engage in marital love (that being sex) with the opposite gender because they are a variant in the sexual continuum that makes an impairment."

Sorry, an edit went awry..

"you claim there is an impairment dissociated with homosexuality"

should have read...

... you claim there is an impairment associated with homosexuality ...

It seems like you are having trouble following. You ask questions, I answer. You don't like the answer, but you have not responded to any of the points I have made.

I feel there is no reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry. I believe in full equal marriage.

You can try to dissect the words variant and impairment from here to mars, but saying that homos do have the option to enter marriage with the opposite sex is moronic.

Anyone can love honor and cherish, but if you can't consummate the marriage, the marriage isn't worth anything. Even the church will give you an annulment if you can't consummate... but if you beat your wife, cheat on her, you can't get an annulment (well sometimes it depends on if you have money like the Kennedys)

We can keep going around in circles with this, but it will probably be better to agree to disagree at this point.

Swazool,

You are like a good comedic straight man. So puffed up in your own propriety you fail to recognize when the joke is on you.

First you say I haven't made a point. Now you sum up my side of the conversation by saying I'm asking questions (more accurate) but that I don't like your answers (less accurate). I've only tried to be ballast to your back and forth flailing.

But the truth is all so much more simple than your flailing back and forth. I put out my points in my first post. You may need to re-read it since you've not challenged any of the points in it. In fact, as I noted earlier (and you seem to not disagree with since) you've fully run with and validated the premise of those points in stating what you think homosexuals are impaired in doing.

If you re-read that you'll find my commentary on that matter...

"[T]here is a group in this debate which seems to hold echoes from the identity politics of the past. A group which like the segregationists of the past argue that their identity requires them to exclude some group of other people from their institution.

"But that isn't marriage, because gays can get married if they get married to someone of the other gender.

"Oh, they can't you say? They can't marry someone of the *other* gender because of their *identity* of being homosexual? Well I think we've found the echoes of the segregationists then."

Since then I've only probed what you really mean by impairment, which you've once again said, "You can try to dissect the words variant and impairment from here to mars, but saying that homos do have the option to enter marriage with the opposite sex is moronic." But I already knew I had your position nailed, even back when you kept complaining that I didn't.

My work, as it seems, was done when I said it was. You already provided to my point, though I must say that wasn't required.

"Oh, they can't you say? They can't marry someone of the *other* gender because of their *identity* of being homosexual? Well I think we've found the echoes of the segregationists then."

If you can't see how stupid this argument is then you have a big problem. The whole point of marriage is to be with the person you love. A homosexual will never be able to love a person of the opposite sex the same way. The way you're implying it, marrying someone just to get the benefits of marriage, would constitute fraud.

You want to know what's REALLY funny?I don't think a single homosexual has participated in this conversation.
LOL.

Syrax says, "The whole point of marriage is to be with the person you love."

I mean, we all know that first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes.... ?

I don't know if such an oversimplification really makes a difference in this conversation. But Syrax does continue to validate the very argument Syrax balked at by saying, "A homosexual will never be able to love a person of the opposite sex the same way."

Because, as we all know and I said before we are to believe, they can't marry someone of the *other* gender because of their *identity* of being homosexual? Well I think we've found the echoes of the segregationists then.

But to be honest, this is not a major point.

Marriage is more than being with someone you love, and marriage is not the only institution which can or should help people who are in love.

First come love, then comes marriage, then comes (as the colloquial rhyme goes) then comes baby in the baby carriage. And that just points us once again to what Justin says...

"The relationship formed in homosexual couples is different in substantive ways from the relationship formed between heterosexual couples, most critically in the latter's ability to create children almost casually. It is not bigotry to insist that such an ability is not frivolous, and it is eminently reasonable to suggest that civic policies should maintain room for the encouragement of cultural acknowledgment of that difference. Doing so does not "create two classes," as Marriage Equality Rhode Island spokesman Bill Fischer asserts; it accurately recognizes two categories of behavior.

"There are rights, however, to which people who've taken on the responsibility of caring for each other should have access, but they should be assessed on their individual merits. That appears to be what Petrarca's legislation would do."

Again you are trying to run with a segregationist theory, good thing you say it isn't a major point because you are not making a point.

So it is a category of behavior?

So, when a homosexual couple, let's say lesbians, have children, they should be able to marry? I saw some of the testimony on tv and I saw a few lesbians with kids.

Swazool says: "Again you are trying to run with a segregationist theory, good thing you say it isn't a major point because you are not making a point."

Funny thing is, after talking with you for almost a day, its clear you have no idea what a point is. Re-read the above comments to watch you flail right and left, only to run headlong into the point I made in my first post.

Speaking of flailing, "segregationist theory" it is not. That segregationists like white supremacist complain that their identity purity requires them to segregate is undisputed.

And a correlation between homosexualist theory and segregationist theory has been confirmed by you and another poster at this point. There's not much to run from there.

But you are right, it is only as major a point as others may want to make their identity the basis for their claim to neuter marriage. And on those grounds, it seems to be a major point considering how much you and another poster have balked at it, yet can't help but re-affirm it at the same time.

Swazool says: "So, when a homosexual couple, let's say lesbians, have children, they should be able to marry?"

I think one of the first points I chuckled at your poor understanding of science was when you mistook a genetic variation for the impairment it might cause.

But this is unique. Ask someone you trust, or wait until you reach 7th grade health class, to find out how babies are made. Then come back and we can continue the discussion. Because until you understand how babies are created, you'll likely continue to offer up a hypothetical of two women having kids together.

A sperm meets an egg.

This can happen in a few ways. One of my college friends was having problems with fertility, after three ici attempts, they moved on to ivf. (this is a heterosexual couple). They have twin boys.

A lesbian couple I know got pregnant with ici, didn't need to do the more invasive ivf. They have boy and girl twins.

So the heterosexual couple needed more medical intervention than the homo couple.

I am happy for both couples.

A sperm meets an egg.

This can happen in a few ways. One of my college friends was having problems with fertility, after three ici attempts, they moved on to ivf. (this is a heterosexual couple). They have twin boys.

A lesbian couple I know got pregnant with ici, didn't need to do the more invasive ivf. They have boy and girl twins.

So the heterosexual couple needed more medical intervention than the homo couple.

I am happy for both couples.

The UN recognizes the rights of children to know and (where possible) be raised who their parents are (and they mean the identities of the people who combined to create them).

We are talking about equal rights, which to me means everyone's rights are equally respected and recognized.

As I said above, only in marriage can the rights of the man, woman, and child they potentially have together be fully realized.

That a lesbian couple payed someone to abandon their child so they could pretend they had one together. While you seem to celebrate them equally, I wish I could also. Certainly I hope they have a happy life and take care of the child, but I can only morn what they already took away from the child before it was born.

If it comes down to money, both couples paid for medical procedures.

"We are talking about equal rights, which to me means everyone's rights are equally respected and recognized"

But you want to withhold those rights from the lesbian family. You can morn for those children, but you do not have the right to keep rights from their parents. Their family, marriage, and life does not intrude on yours.

But it doesn't come down to money. It comes down to whether, as definable categories of relationships, homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships differ in a significant way that is relevant to the definition of marriage. That a very small minority of heterosexual couples proves sterile does not mean that another group that is 100% sterile is indistinguishable.

Justin beat me to it, and is 100% what I agree with.

Swazool says: If it comes down to money [...]

I personally didn't mention money, if anything my comment boiled down to rights. Specifically the rights of the child, and only a marriage between the man and the woman who combined to create the child can fully realize the rights and responsibilities of all three. That is the observable difference in relationships (not people) that makes marriage unique.

Slavery and human trafficking comes down to money and ownership over other's rights.

On lawn, you mentioned money when you said the lesbian couple paid someone to abandon his child.

I am confused, please tell me you are not comparing a lesbian couple who have children to slavery and human trafficking?

Joe Bernstein can jump in on that one.

But please tell me how you have the right to demand that that lesbian couple should not be able to access the same rights as you? Again I ask, how does their marriage, family, and relationship effect yours?

Sorry, we had a cross of context there.

I never mentioned money as the basis for why marriage is what it is, or why what they did causes me to feel sad for them and the child.

Yes, they did pay someone to abandon their child and likely to remain anonymous to the child. But it make no mistake isn't the money that they robbed from the child. That was just the instrument for finding the accomplice.

Marriage comes down to rights, and marriage equality is best seen as recognizing the rights of the man, woman, and child the potentially have together. That is a unity based on their shared identity.

The unity of a shared identity of gender, to the exclusion of the father (no doubt because of nothing more than his gender) is a homosexual ideal that mirrors that of 50's white supremacists. And yes, even 1700's slavery.

There are similarities, no one seems to deny. The comparison is not a totaly likeness, but similarity. And that similarity, in my mind, is significant.

You are good at ducking questions.

I just want to get this straight, you are comparing marriage equality to white supremacy, and lesbian parents to human traffickers? (You has said in an earlier post that I would be considered homophobic...lol)

Please answer the question, how does their marriage, family, and relationship effect you?

I'll answer with a poem...

First They came... - Pastor Martin Niemoller
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

-- Or as I believe MLK jr said (and I paraphrase), to speak up for freedom and civil rights anywhere is to speak up for it everywhere.

Why would their loss of rights have to affect me personally for me to care?

It affects our ability to shape the society that we'll bequeath to our children, making it one in which the law explicitly denies the unique nature of the procreative relationship. As a matter of civil law, there will be no institution that specifically links mother, father, and the children whom they create as a unique and desirable unit.

Your rhetorical legerdemain only works, though, by imagining a civil right to a civic construct like marriage. There is no such right. The right that does exist is to have the government treat people who are identically situated in the relevant ways equally. Homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are not identically situated when it comes to the ability to create children.

Most married couples do not experience infertility problems. Of the relatively small segment that do, most resolve their problems through changes in behavior. Some seek other types of medical treatment for their reproductive disabilities.

Only a tiny percentage of married couples who experience infertility troubles partake of IVF/ARTs. And of these, the vast majority use their own sperm and ova.

Third party procreation (ie. 'donor' sperm and/or ova), is extramarital procreation, even when married people partake of it.

The upshot: human fertility is variable and yet less than a fraction of 1% of married couples who experience infertility problems go outside of their marital relationships to partake of extramarital procreation.

And the sideshot: 100% of one-sexed scenarios -- gay or not, sexualized or not, SSM'd or not -- must go outside of the sex-segregative relationship to attain children via these methods -- IVF/ARTs -- that depend on procurement of sperm and/or ova from persons of the other sex.

This is a contrast not merely of degree, however, but of kind. Yes, human fertility is variable, however, no one-sex-short relationships is fertile without the other sex. The lack of the other sex is not infertility; the one-sexed scenario is simply, nonfertile (without the other sex). This is not a disability nor an impairment; nothing needs fixing, curing, or even treatment. Nonfertility is part and parcel of a sex-segregative relationsnhip.

So, there is a moral, ethical, and even a legal contrast here that needs to be noted; and not just due to a legitimate concern regarding proporitoinality, but also due to the two-sexed nature of human procreation versus the one-sex-short nature of a one-sexed scenario. Nothing that an all-male or an all-female scenario might do sexual can overcome its nonfertility.

Laws have changed over time. Laws denied African Americans the right to vote. Laws denied women the ability to participate in physical education because people believed it would harm them. Laws are always expanding and changing. When a law expands to include another group, it does not deny the first group it's ability to participate in those rights they had. Expanding marriage to include homosexual couples does not deny any rights to the heterosexual couples that already participate in marriage.

Mass already has marriage equality, heterosexuals that were married before and after the change have not been denied any right. There children have not been unlinked to them because homosexuals are now allowed to also participate in marriage.

Homosexuals can have children. Homosexuals can adopt.
In a short time, homosexuals will be able to marry in this state.

Keep trying to push your homosexuals are similar to white supremacists, lesbian mothers are like human traffickers, and usurping MLK quotes. The truth is you are on the wrong side of history. I know it must be scary, but changes are coming, actually they are already here!

Swazool,

I stand up for the rights of everyone.

After all, the children (who like in your lesbian example) are asked to pay the most price for the prejudice of the lesbians against men, are going to be the ones to judge.

I doubt they will judge people like you, who advocated for such prejudice so happily as you judge yourself :)

As we already established in our earlier discussion, this isn't about expanding rights to homosexuals as marriage to a person of the other gender is something they select themselves out of. Its about removing marriage equality -- the equal recognition of the rights and responsibilities of the man, woman, and child they potentially have together. And Massachusetts will always be remembered as the first to deviate from that.

For how can you advocate for equal recognition between the man, woman, and child they potentially have together in a marriage which excludes a man or woman from the whole marriage because of nothing other than the gender preference of the participants?

That is no different than the question that was studied by the Brown v Board of Education, which pondered how you can advocate for equality for all people in a school where all the participants excluded a whole group of people based on their skin color.

History doesn't look kindly on the white supremacists, or the human traffickers, or the Nazi's who asked their citizens to stay quiet unless their own rights were affected. Even though they all had plenty of advocates who (like you) imagined the world ahead they liberated at the expense of others would welcome them with open arms.

Actually your white supremacy, human traffickers, and Nazi references are so ridiculous I can't even trying to bring you back to reality to continue a rational debate.

You can look at the effects that science and technology has had an laws. Laws have to evolve to keep up. Laws change and expand to keep up with new inventions. You are harping on the procreation angle, the marriage law can be seen as expanding and changing to keep up with the science that allows lesbians to have children.

Of course, it really comes down to if you are against gay marriage don't marry a gay, no one is going to force you too. As far as I know there has been no forced gay marriages in mass.

[This comment was actually written by Swazool, who should be reminded that impersonating other commenters is a bannable offense --- ed.]

Oh, I didn't think about it like that.
You are right, I guess gays should be able to get married.

Thanks for changing my mind :)

I think I am going to go watch a Broadway musical after I shave my chest.

That was funny, writing pretending to be me.

I can't say it was rational or mature, but it was funny.

Its not what I'm against as much as what I'm for.

I'm for marriage equality -- the equal recognition of the rights and responsibilities of the man, woman, and child they potentially have together. And until gays and lesbians claim they are neither men nor women, nor ever children, then I can only assume that equality is meaningful to them also even if they would have it done away because of their personal prejudice against the other gender.

For how can you advocate for equal recognition between the man, woman, and child they potentially have together in a marriage which excludes a man or woman from the whole marriage because of nothing other than the gender preference of the participants?

The gay type of relationship is similarily situated with the various types of relationships (and types of living arrangements) that populate the broad nonmarriage category.

There is no justification for treating the gay subset of this range of relationship types as superior to the rest of nonmarriage.

Even SSM argumentation, even with its gaycentric rhetoric, has failed to justify a line between SSM and nonmarriage. So why should anyone consider such a line anything but arbitrary favoritism of the gay identity group?

Provision for designated beneficiaries already exists in Rhode Island, and across the country, and does not depend on sexual orientation nor on gay identity. Nonmarriage is not defined by either of those things.

If the Reciprocal Beneficiaries legislation helps to clarify a protective basis for some types of relationships that populate the nonmarriage category, that is well and good. But this cannot be marriage in all but name. That would be unjust -- SSMers have not justified such a thing.

The gay type of relationship is similarily situated with the various types of relationships (and types of living arrangements) that populate the broad nonmarriage category.

There is no justification for treating the gay subset of this range of relationship types as superior to the rest of nonmarriage.

Even SSM argumentation, even with its gaycentric rhetoric, has failed to justify a line between SSM and nonmarriage. So why should anyone consider such a line anything but arbitrary favoritism of the gay identity group?

Provision for designated beneficiaries already exists in Rhode Island, and across the country, and does not depend on sexual orientation nor on gay identity. Nonmarriage is not defined by either of those things.

If the Reciprocal Beneficiaries legislation helps to clarify a protective basis for some types of relationships that populate the nonmarriage category, that is well and good. But this cannot be marriage in all but name. That would be unjust -- SSMers have not justified such a thing.

swazool-I don't know if you were serious,but human trafficking(which we used to call alien smuggling before Newspeak took over)can apply to babies.
The homosexual/lesbian aspect doesn't enter into it.
If a baby is stolen and sold for adoption in another country that is human trafficking.
Legal adoption is just that-adoption.It's a recognized social practice and can hardly be compared with illegally marketing humans.
Many children's lives are saved and made immeasurably better as the result of adoption.It just need good oversight.
I had a partner on the job who was adopted as was his sister(from different mothers)and he said he never wanted to know who his birth mother was since his adoptive parents wanted him and obviously she didn't.
This man is a well-adjusted individual as is his sister.
It works out well in so many cases,but there can be abuses like in any situation.

No Joe, I didn't say they were human traffickers, On Lawn did. If you read back you can see where I was responding. There is a lot to go through, so I will give you the summary.

I am for full marriage equality, letting homosexuals get married.

On Lawn believes

#1 People who are for marriage equality are similar to white supremacists.

#2 Lesbian mothers are in fact human traffickers.

#3 Sexual relations is not an important part of a marriage, but the most important part of marriage is the result of the act of sexual relations, a child.

I think Justin agrees with most/all of what he is saying, but I am not sure.

Joe, I know we don't agree on most topics, but you are pretty rational and I do respect you. Is this "On Lawn" out of his mind or what?

Swazool,

You'll notice Joe said that adoption can be a wash for human trafficking.

Also, you'll remember that all I said about human trafficking was, "Slavery and human trafficking comes down to money and ownership over other's rights."

What I said about the lesbians was,

"I stand up for the rights of everyone."

"After all, the children (who like in your lesbian example) are asked to pay the most price for the prejudice of the lesbians against men, are going to be the ones to judge.

"I doubt they will judge people like you, who advocated for such prejudice so happily as you judge yourself."

What price is that? I noted also...

"The UN recognizes the rights of children to know and (where possible) be raised who their parents are (and they mean the identities of the people who combined to create them)."

"We are talking about equal rights, which to me means everyone's rights are equally respected and recognized.

"As I said above, only in marriage can the rights of the man, woman, and child they potentially have together be fully realized.

"That a lesbian couple payed someone to abandon their child so they could pretend they had one together. While you seem to celebrate them equally, I wish I could also. Certainly I hope they have a happy life and take care of the child, but I can only morn what they already took away from the child before it was born."

You said, "I am for full marriage equality, letting homosexuals get married."

But that contradicts with what you said, "[...] I do not believe a homosexual can marry a person of the opposite gender [...]"

Your argument turns into one like my friend related through an analogy...

"Statistics show the use of seatbelts saves lives.

"Some people, due to genetics or environment, find seatbelts too confining and so are unlikely to experience those benefits. However, if we were to include sweat pants in the definition of seatbelts, seatbelt usage would go way up, especially among the population that finds the current use of the word too restrictive. This will save lives throughout the nation, an important social goal.

"Since saving lives is so important, only those who wish death on non-seatbelt wearers, i.e., bigots, would object. How would it harm existing seatbelt users if a few sweat pants wearers were recognized as seatbelted? The vast majority of Americans can wear seatbelts just fine and will continue to do so even if their neighbor down the street, who through no fault of his own finds seatbelts too confining, is allowed to simply wear sweatpants. The percentages are just too small to have any real impact on the seat belt wearing majority. There are no statistical studies that show any negative effects of wearing sweat pants while driving."

swazool-I was referring to when you suggested asking me abut it(human trafficking)-I was following the debate and I am aware you didn't believe lesbians having children relates to human trafficking.
My attitude on the whole issue is that I don't really care one way or the other-I can live with whatever the GA decides-what I DO care about is them standing up and making a public decision one by one-if they haven't the spine to do that,they need to get another job.
I haven't seen On Lawn post on anything else,so I can only say that he or she is very adamant about their position.
You have to realize that same sex marriage is extremely offensive to many people on a religious basis and you can't expect them to support or even accept it.
I grew up in an era when homosexuality was considered "weird" and nowadays most people don't give it much attention.
I am much more concerned with the problems of illegal immigration and the economy,meaning abusive taxes and wasteful,corrupt spending practices.
I bet you anything if waste and fraud were seriously attacked,legitimate social welfare needs would not have to be cut.
I don't think people illegally here should get ANY leeway in terms of benefits or access to jobs.
SSM affects a relatively small group of
people but it's generating a lot of debate and activity out of proportion to its potential effect on thelives of the general public.

Joe,

I appreciate your concerns over immigration. I have strong feelings against the current laisses faire about immigration which endorses illegal immigration. I feel it makes a work class of exploitable citizens, and I don't find it fair for anyone.

I also believe in minimal government, and expect the budget to be not only balanced but minimized in spending.

But in this thread, I am adament against removing the rights of others, and I see neutering marriage for the sake of homosexuality to do just that.

But homosexuality, itself, I have no reason to be against. I even endorse recognizing it with many other domestic situations with reciprocal benefits based on their mutual trust. Personally, I find the homosexual-only basis for Civil Unions and Domestic partnerships to be unjustifiably exclusive.

I fully endorse the idea that Justin wrote about above.

I'm just here because a self-righteous person like Swazool is, sometimes, the best kind of person to remind where their self-righteousness is at the cost of other's rights.

Swazool: ...they ["a gay person", sic] are not able to engage in marital love (that being sex) with the opposite gender...

Study?

...because they ["a gay person", sic] are a variant in the sexual continuum...

"Are not able to" is a binary assessment, not a continuous (as in "continuum") one.

If Swazool's argument were a rational one, it wouldn't have such internal inconsistencies.

Oh, I am sure some gay people, some on this blog and in NOM even, are able to have sex with the opposite sex. Maybe it is with the help of science, like viagra. Just like science helps lesbians have children. Just because a small portion of homosexuals can have sex with the opposite gender does not mean that we should make it a requirement of all homosexuals to have sex with the opposite gender.

It must be difficult to face the fact that you are on the loosing side on the debate and history. DADT has already been defeated. Obama said he will not fight against gays in court in DOMA cases. Even George Bush's wife and daughter came out in support of SSM. The numbers on the side of those who discriminate against the homosexuals are dwindling, in a generation or two they will be gone.

Keep beating your bible and thesaurus, and maybe that sound will drown out the sound of the gay wedding bells!

Earlier I noted when Swazoon suggested that lesbians have children together...

"I think one of the first points I chuckled at your poor understanding of science was when you mistook a genetic variation for the impairment it might cause.

"But this is unique. Ask someone you trust, or wait until you reach 7th grade health class, to find out how babies are made. Then come back and we can continue the discussion. Because until you understand how babies are created, you'll likely continue to offer up a hypothetical of two women having kids together."

That was also prescient, I believe, as Swazool has considered this to be available through science.

However, not even science can help two people of the same gender have children between them.

They are left to somehow asking someone to abandon a child, so they can pretend they had it between them.

Sometimes that happens by mistake, through divorce or whatnot. Sometimes that happens by finding someone of the other gender who will (sometimes for a cost) remain anonymous to the child to facilitate the lie.

The plight of such children is coming to light more and more these days. Elizabeth Marquadt explored this in her article "My Daddy's name is Donor". Another blog "Who'se Daughter" is one woman's emphatic and constant lament to her fate as one of the children who may never know their heritage.

There is, as I noted, an UN recognized right on the matter. But also more practically, there are many ailments that can be prevented or mitigated if the Dr. has a real family medical history to draw from.

Also of note are the side effects for women for harvesting eggs, and how that burden seems to fall mostly on the third world, were women are more apt to take the risk for a few dollars.

Another blog, "Egg and Sperm" notes the potential side effects of trying to produce a baby from two eggs, or two sperm. It is likely to have problems for decades while people try to make babies in such a "scientific" but unnatural way. It is a procedure not unlike cloning, but even more difficult.

For the record, I don't care of DADT gets killed. I for one think it was a stupid compromise that puts people in risk, much like endorsed illegal immigration.

My interest in this has nothing to do with homosexuality, and everything to do with marriage equality -- the equal recognition of the rights and responsibilities of the man, woman, and child they potentially have together.

I see a program like Justin endorsed above, to be the most equitable solution to this. Not only does it help gays, but it is much more inclusive of all non-marriagable types of adult relationships that are raising children together.

Swazool: Keep beating your bible and thesaurus, and maybe that sound will drown out the sound of the gay wedding bells!

In case there was any remaining doubt about the irrationality of Swazool's position...

Swazool asserted, mistakenly, that

"Expanding marriage to include homosexual couples does not deny any rights to the heterosexual couples that already participate in marriage."

1. The SSM idea is a rejection of the core meaning of marriage; thus replacing the marriage idea with the SSM idea would not be an expansion of the right to form a marital relationship under the law.

2. The SSM idea does not include justification for limiting SSM to "couples". It actually negates the basis for drawing lines of eligibility/ineligiblity that is entailed in the marriage idea.

3. There is no homosexual criterion for ineligibility to marry; and no heterosexual criterion for eligiblity to marry. The homo-heterosexual dichotomy is false when it comes to marriage law and to the core meaning of the social institution of marriage.

Note that the core meaning of marriage is as On Law described in his earlier comments. In my own words, the following core is found across the anthropological and historical records:

The core meaning of the foundational social institution of marriage is 1) integration of the sexes, 2) provision for responsible procreation, and 3) these (at least these) items combined as a coherent whole (i.e. a foundational social institution of civil society). This is the marital type of relationship. The law recognizes this with legal requirements (the man-woman criterion is definitive) that clearly express the sexual basis for marriage: starting with the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity, for consummation, for annulment provisions, and for adultery as grounds for divorce.

The SSM idea is a rejection of that. There is no same-sex sexual basis that would be expressed in legal requirements for the type of relationship that SSM argumentation produces, at law.

Further, the SSM idea is argued with an obvious emphasis on gay identity and on homosexual sexual behavior and attraction.

But that emphasis does not distinguish the gay subset of relationship types from the rest of the types of relationships that populate the nonmarriage category. The line between marriage and nonmarriage derives from the core meaning of marriage -- prior to a licensing scheme, prior to government involvement, and prior to efforts of deconstructionists to destroy the coherency of this social institution.

That gay emphasis does not justify replacing the marriage idea with the SSM idea in our laws and culture. Lacking that justification is a big problem for SSMers. In effect, the replacement would abolish the core meaning of marriage; it would demote that core meaning from its preferntial status to a barely tolerative status, as per the rhetoric and argumentation of the SSM campaign far and wide.

So, no, it is wrong to claim that the right to participate in marriage is going to remain intact should the SSM idea replace the marriage idea. Each union of husband and wife would be treated as if it lack either a husband or a wife; that is the meaning of the SSM idea, afterall. Thus, the sexual basis for marriage would be rejected and abolished; and the special reason for the special staus of marriage would be discarded as intolerable.

Every marriage will be effected by that; all that currently exist and all future marriages as well.

This is such an extraordinary demand, by SSMers, that it requires an extraordinary justification.

None has been forthcoming.

But the provision for designated beneficiaries fits very well the SSM campaigns talk of protections. Protection equality within the nonmarriage category is justified by the lack of (or diminishment of) sex integration and by the lack of (or diminishment of) provision for responsible procreation in the circumstances of the types of relationships that exist in the nonmarriage category. Indeed, gay identity and sexual orientation are irrelevant to such protections.